My former postdoc mentor wants to be an author on a paper I wrote with some other people. Her role was to connect me with the other people (she knew them, and they had access to a specific patient population I needed). Also, my mentor and I talked about some related ideas years back, but never the specific experiment that the paper is about. She thinks the experiment was her idea, but she is mistaken about this: when I first told her about it, it was already completely designed, she gave no input.

Agree to the request?

Pros:

(1) She will support my career more (promote me to other colleagues) if I do what she wants.

(2) If I leave her off the paper, she will probably go around telling people it was her idea and that I’m some kind of jerk. And they might believe her… she is senior and well respected in the field.

Cons:

(1) It detracts for my record in the sense of making the paper look less independent than it actually is (a fairly minor concern as my tenure application is already under review).

(2) It detracts from the contributions of the other authors who actually worked on the study (also a minor concern because it only detracts slightly for there to be 6 authors instead of 5).

(3) She did not make a scientific contribution to the study, so it is unfair (this is maybe the real sticking point).

I want to know if a proper authentic research paper / review article has been written and sent to a journal(which comes out to be a predatory one), what are the negative effects of it?Also, if it is my work, how can I claim it? IF I now want to republish 8t in some authentic journal,why cant I? If nothing can be done, then does that mean I lost my work entirely? There must be a way out.Please guide me stepwise.I also want to know how can I get citations of the paper.

I am one month away from finishing my dissertation. I did not receive much guidance from my supervisor, so I asked a co-supervisor to join my project about two years after I started (with still two years left). In these two years I think I had 5 or 6 meetings with him, which is not too often, but his feedback in these moments was always very valuable. Moreover, when my relation with my supervisor deteriorated, he was there to ‘protect’ me. I am pretty sure I would not still be working as a graduate student otherwise.

He now points these things out to me in quite an angry way via email and argues that I have not provided him with enough output to justify the time he has spend on me. We currently have one paper together that is under review. I have no idea how to provide more output for him because we have no other papers together. I have only one month left in my current contract so I don’t want to start a new paper. I can put his name on another paper that’s currently under review but that doesn’t feel right since he did not contribute to this paper.

Right now I feel very stressed about this and I have no idea what to do. I cannot afford to have a bad relationship with my co-supervisor right before I wish to submit my dissertation but I also feel this guilt trip is not fair. What do you think? Do you see a solution? Thanks for your advice!

I am a PhD student currently writing up my thesis which was performing data analysis as part of a consortium project.

For a number of reasons the project has stalled due to poor planning, lack of expertise, personality clashes etc. This means that the paper describing the dataset has not yet been published, and in it’s current state I can’t see how it ever will be. My research is based upon the analysis of this dataset. There were 4 people working on the analysis for the project, and whilst we were all involved in the design, people took ownership of particular parts, and the end product is a bit of a disjointed mess – a classic case of “too many cooks spoil the broth”.

In my thesis, I have to include two pieces of analysis that were “led” by some of the other consortium members as they lay the foundations, and it would not be a coherent story without these sections. In the preliminary unpublished paper, these two pieces constitute two figures and are brief, incomplete, and in my opinion not methodologically robust. In my thesis, I have performed my own much more substantial versions of these analysis, and with what I consider a better approach which better fits my own work and story.

My analysis represents my own view of the data which has been expanded greatly however, it still addresses the same question and several of the same general conclusions are found. My questions regards how to properly navigate the authorship of these pieces and place the appropriate amount of credit with the people who did these preliminary analysis. I do not want to sign over credit for work where it is not due. Does anyone have any experience with this type of issue regarding authorship of works on consortium projects, particularly within PhD projects, or any general advice?

I work in an environment that’s somewhere between academia and the professional world. I’m an analyst within this environment, in addition to my professional responsibilities dictated by the workplace’s main mission, I assist the PhD’s with their research. (I have an masters in Statistics)

I’ve been working on a project with one of the PhD’s for over a year (it goes slow, professional responsibilities get in the way of research). The project is going nowhere for a variety of reasons (the first is that the methodology he wants to use is demonstrably flawed–from a statistical standpoint).

Several times over this time period he has dangled the carrot of co-authorship on the paper (at times saying “you will be a co-author”, and a few weeks later saying “if you contribute maybe you will be a co-author”. This is doubly frustrating when it seems to me that I’m the only one contributing…). He also has mentioned several times bringing his friend in as co-author as well (his friend has contributed nothing thus far. I met him, he didn’t even seem enthusiastic about the project).

Thus far the main methodology we used is one he suggested, but actually bringing that through to completion has been entirely me. It yields no fruit, though, and I feel this whole enterprise has been an exercise in frustration.

I have another idea, approaching the problem in a different direction. I haven’t yet done the modeling, but I believe the idea to be ideologically consistent with the original goal of the project, and should be statistically sound. The trouble is, I’m not sure I want to co-author with this person.

Am I wrong to consider nixing their project and doing my own thing on my own?

I spent 5 years doing my PhD research (4 years experiments, and one year writing the manuscript, making the figures and getting it revised and submitted by the supervisor. We submitted the paper (I was the first author) which is rejected with a recommendation for one more experiment, and resubmission. Three colleagues did it, as my scholarship was ended and as I was busy writing the thesis. I was shocked that the supervisor (PI) put one colleague instead of me as a first author, who just carried out this last experiment with help of two other colleagues (were added as co-authors). That colleague was busy doing her own project and did not do that much to my project except for that last experiment and revising the manuscript and giving some comments for correction. I refused the new order, though the paper was sent to the journal. How could I get my first authorship?

This question already has an answer here:

I am finishing my first paper. I am unaware of how I should treat a certain situation, and have come here for advice.

The paper is about 30 pages long. I have written 26 of those pages. On the pages I wrote, the other person helped with how thoughts are to be expressed, but all the theorems and proofs were done by me. The ideas of the paper are mine, and their execution.

How is the authorship to be divided in such an example? Should I be the first author or the corresponding author? Both? Should he be the second author, or the co-author?

I read this answer here, saying in math and computer science all authors are considered to have contributed equally. How should the ranking be notated than?

EDIT:

Question in partially answered in the linking answer (duplicate), at the comments bellow.

I am finishing my first paper. I am unaware of how I should treat a certain situation, and have come here for advice.

The paper is about 30 pages long. I have written 26 of those pages. On the pages I wrote, the other person helped with how thoughts are to be expressed, but all the theorems and proofs were done by me. The ideas of the paper are mine, and their execution.

How is the authorship to be divided in such an example? Should I be the first author or the corresponding author? Both? Should he be the second author, or the co-author?

I read this answer here, saying in math and computer science all authors are considered to have contributed equally. How should the ranking be notated than?

Also, how are these things to be notated in Latex?

I’m an undergraduate who recently was involved in writing a paper where I did most, if not all, of the work writing the manuscript. The PhD student basically “dumped” his project into my lap after a year of sitting on the results, and asked me to write it. I wasn’t really involved in the project, except for a few small things in the beginning.

I’m currently listed as third author on the paper; the second author is completely out of the picture, and has not contributed at all to the paper (the PhD student has at least provided some edits). Should I argue that because I wrote the paper, despite not doing all of the research that the second author did, that I should be listed as second author?

As the deadline grew nearer, I found myself picking up more and more of the responsibility of the paper. I was initially happy to be third author, but when I found myself writing the entire paper, I think that my contributions are a lot greater than I had initially anticipated.

However, I’ve never been involved in writing a paper before, so I don’t know what the etiquette is for these types of scenarios. Should the second author be listed on the paper at all, or should we swap places in authorship? I don’t think that the second author will even read the paper before it’s published anyways. Should I talk to the PhD student that I think I should get more recognition for the work I’ve done on this paper, because I feel like I honestly should be first author considering that if I didn’t write this paper, it never would have been written, or should I just be happy where I am?

I’m not really sure what to do! Any advice would be immensely helpful.

My advisor told me to write a blog post, so I wrote a draft of it. He didn’t like it, so he told me to write another draft. He didn’t like that one either, so he wrote a third draft himself, which contained none of the words from the previous two drafts. He listed me as the sole author of the blog post and has been going around telling everyone I wrote it, even though he wrote the entire thing.

He has also done this with actual research papers (he listed me as the first author even though he wrote the whole thing — I did make all the figures though).

Is this normal advisor behavior? It makes me feel a bit weird because I didn’t actually write it.